Levy v Bablis [2012] NSWCA 157

Levy v Bablis [2012] NSWCA 157

The communications between legal advisers and Sherwood concerning MacGillivrays' retainer were privileged; the documents in MacGillivrays' possession were copies provided for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and were privileged under Propend; draft documents created by MacGillivrays on Sherwood's instructions were also privileged. The waiver argument failed because Schedule A for the earlier Hardings subpoena showed no commonality with the documents listed in Mr Collett's Schedule A.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Court of Appeal Ruling on Claim of Legal Professional Privilege Over Documents Produced Pursuant to Subpoena Dated 2 September 2011 Addressed to Mac Gillivrays
Outcome
Claim for privilege upheld; appellant denied access to the subpoenaed documents.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Adduce Fresh and Further Evidence on Appeal' 'subpoena to Produce Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'copies of Documents Submitted to Legal Advisers for Legal Advice' 'waiver of Privilege']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['application for Leave to Adduce Fresh and Further Evidence on Appeal' 'subpoena to Produce Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'copies of Documents Submitted to Legal Advisers for Legal Advice' 'waiver of Privilege']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Court of Appeal Ruling on Claim of Legal Professional Privilege Over Documents Produced Pursuant to Subpoena Dated 2 September 2011 Addressed to Mac Gillivrays

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the documents produced by MacGillivrays pursuant to subpoena were privileged' 'Whether copies of otherwise non-privileged documents submitted to legal advisers for legal advice were privileged' 'Whether privilege had been waived by inspection of documents produced under an earlier subpoena to Hardings Lawyers']

Ratio Decidendi

The communications between legal advisers and Sherwood concerning MacGillivrays' retainer were privileged; the documents in MacGillivrays' possession were copies provided for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and were privileged under Propend; draft documents created by MacGillivrays on Sherwood's instructions were also privileged. The waiver argument failed because Schedule A for the earlier Hardings subpoena showed no commonality with the documents listed in Mr Collett's Schedule A.

Court Disposition

Claim for privilege upheld; appellant denied access to the subpoenaed documents.

Orders

  • ['Uphold the claim for privilege in respect of the documents produced pursuant to subpoena dated 2 September 2011 addressed to MacGillivrays and order that the appellant Mr Levy not have access to those documents.']